Spacecraft Take-Off from the Moon - Apollo Landing Module

  • Thread starter Thread starter gianeshwar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Moon
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the mechanics of spacecraft take-off from the Moon, specifically the Apollo landing module. It clarifies that rocket engines do not require an atmosphere to function, as they generate thrust by expelling exhaust gases, which creates a reaction force based on the conservation of momentum. Participants debate the role of air in propulsion, with some arguing that rockets push against their own exhaust rather than the surrounding air, while others assert that air reaction devices do push against the air to generate lift. The conversation highlights the differences between rocket propulsion in a vacuum and air-breathing engines, emphasizing that rockets operate independently of atmospheric pressure. Overall, the principles of action and reaction are key to understanding spacecraft movement in the absence of an atmosphere.
gianeshwar
Messages
225
Reaction score
14
Dear Friends!
I am curious to know about take off from moon of a space craft.
How Apollo landing module after detaching itself from orbitter module lands on moon and how later it takes off to attach to orbitter module in the absance
of any atmosphere which could give continuous support to craft while landing and push to craft while taking off?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You know that rocket motors do not need an atmosphere to work, right?
 
How external reaction is generated to give it force to move?
 
gianeshwar said:
How external reaction is generated to give it force to move?

The fuel (and oxidizer) that the craft carries along acts both as an energy source and as reaction mass. The rocket motors expel the exhaust gasses out the back at very high speed. As the gasses are hurled one way the resulting force propels the craft in the opposite direction.
 
A rocket engine does NOT "push" against anything. it throws gasses out the back end, having momentum "mv" where m is the (very small) mass of the gasses an v is (very large) speed of the gasses. That gives it an increase in speed V given by MV= mv with M the mass of the rocket. Do you know what "conservation of momentum" means. What grade are you in school?
 
On Earth rockets use the reaction force provided by reaction from air as well.On moon there can not be such reaction except in the beginning from floor.
Rocket is continuously pulled towards floor due to gravitation.
 
The rocket fuel is what pushes the rocket engine. The air is not needed. The fuel combusts, expands and pushes the rocket engine.
 
gianeshwar said:
How external reaction is generated to give it force to move?

See also:

240px-R%C3%BCckstoss1600.png



And:

http://www.popsci.com/military-avia...-times-nasa-youre-right-rockets-do-work-space
 
gianeshwar said:
On Earth rockets use the reaction force provided by reaction from air as well.On moon there can not be such reaction except in the beginning from floor.
Sorry, but this is false. Backwards even. Since the exhaust gases are opposed by the atmosphere, thrust is LOWER in the atmosphere, not higher.

The same propulsion principle applies to air reaction devices as well (jets, helicopters, etc): they are moved by action-reaction, not by pushing on the air, just like rockets.
 
  • #10
How is the action-reaction effect of air reaction devices not "pushing the air"? That seems very much like pushing the air to me. Air gets pushed down, device gets pushed up such that momentum is conserved and the center of mass of the air/device system remains unchanged. That is what pushing is. At least, that is what I think of when I think of pushing and I think that is what most people think. I never studied aerospace engineering or flight in depth... But from my studies in physics I believe that this is how all motion is achieved - through pushing. Nothing can move without pushing something else.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
russ_watters said:
...helicopters... they are moved by action-reaction, not by pushing on the air...

action - reaction : helicopter pushes air down - air pushes helicopter up
 
  • #12
russ_watters said:
Sorry, but this is false. Backwards even. Since the exhaust gases are opposed by the atmosphere, thrust is LOWER in the atmosphere, not higher.

The same propulsion principle applies to air reaction devices as well (jets, helicopters, etc): they are moved by action-reaction, not by pushing on the air, just like rockets.

Perhaps heavier than air flight could be regarded as the plane pushing against the Earth (effectively) - just with a rather bungee substance in between. After all, the weight of the plane (level flight, of course) is ultimately being supported by the Earth's surface.
 
  • #13
ModusPwnd said:
How is the action-reaction effect of air reaction devices not "pushing the air"? That seems very much like pushing the air to me. Air gets pushed down, device gets pushed up such that momentum is conserved and the center of mass of the air/device system remains unchanged. That is what pushing is.
I guess the point is (as can be seen from the thrust equation) that if ambient pressure is "pushing back" against the rocket exhaust, then the exhaust leaves with a lower downward momentum and the rocket gains less upward momentum. The rocket isn't "using" the reaction with air so much as it is "hindered" by it.
 
  • #14
ModusPwnd said:
How is the action-reaction effect of air reaction devices not "pushing the air"? That seems very much like pushing the air to me. Air gets pushed down, device gets pushed up such that momentum is conserved and the center of mass of the air/device system remains unchanged. That is what pushing is. At least, that is what I think of when I think of pushing and I think that is what most people think. I never studied aerospace engineering or flight in depth... But from my studies in physics I believe that this is how all motion is achieved - through pushing. Nothing can move without pushing something else.
That isn't what the OP is saying. The OP is saying that the air coming out of the nozzle pushes against the air in the atmosphere, generating lift.
 
  • #15
sophiecentaur said:
Perhaps heavier than air flight could be regarded as the plane pushing against the Earth (effectively) - just with a rather bungee substance in between. After all, the weight of the plane (level flight, of course) is ultimately being supported by the Earth's surface.
The airplane does push down on the air of the atmosphere to push itself up and thus will not generate lift in a vacuum. UNLIKE a rocket, which only pushes down on its own exhaust.
 
  • #16
A.T. said:
action - reaction : helicopter pushes air down - air pushes helicopter up
Which air? The air that went through the rotor or the air that didn't? That's the point/difference.
 
  • #17
russ_watters said:
That isn't what the OP is saying. The OP is saying that the air coming out of the nozzle pushes against the air in the atmosphere, generating lift.

Right... My reply was to your claim that air reaction devices don't push the air. They do.
 
  • #18
ModusPwnd said:
Right... My reply was to your claim that air reaction devices don't push the air. They do.
Perhaps the issue is less clear than I realized when talking about vehicles that don't carry their own reaction mass and instead use the air around (above) them. The point in all cases is that the reaction mass - whatever it is - is not pushing on the air below it to support the vehicle.

For air propelled devices, accelerating the air through it, not that air pushing on the air below it, is what causes the lift.

The proof would being in comparing a jet of air from any source in an atmosphere to a similar jet of air in a vacuum. In a vacuum, it accelerates faster and generates more thrust.
 

Similar threads

RIP James Lovell, the astronaut who brought Apollo 13 home safely
Replies
1
Views
192
What were the early design concepts for the Apollo program?
Replies
5
Views
3K
NASA Artemis 1 going to the Moon (launched Nov 16)
4
Replies
183
Views
18K
Margaret Hamilton, Lead Programmer, Apollo Program's Guidance Computer
Replies
4
Views
3K
Suborbital docking - Apollo Landings
Replies
10
Views
2K
Revolutionizing Space Travel: The Innovative Design of the Circular Module
Replies
3
Views
2K
Launching Spacecraft from the Moon: Is it Worth It?
Replies
2
Views
3K
Could women be better suited for long distance space travel?
Replies
48
Views
13K
RIP Gene Cernan, last astronaut on the moon
Replies
3
Views
2K
Is my fictional Solar System stable and realistic?
Replies
21
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top